Two accounts of the first two workshops of the European Association for Transcultural Group Analysis are compared. Differences in observations and emphases are related to the roles and backgrounds of the two observers. Questions are raised about how such factors influenced our observations, and how processes in a transcultural workshop can form paradigms of cultural trauma (such as migration).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ancona, L.
(1987) `Une source de la communication transpersonelle: La trans-culture', Revue de Psychotherapie Psychanalytique de Groupe9-10: 43-50.
2.
Brown, D.G.
(1987) `Context, Content and Process: Interrelationship between Small and Large Groups in a Transcultural Workshop', Group Analysis20(3): 237-248.
3.
Foulkes, E.T.
(1987) `Further Observations from Maastricht', Group Analysis20(3): 249-250.
4.
Grinberg, L.
and Grinberg, R. (1989) (trans. N. Festinger) Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Migration and Exile. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
Husemann, K.
(1987) `Transcultural Problems in Individual and Group Analysis', Revue de Psychotherapie Psychanalytique de Group9: 65-76.
6.
Kaes, R.
(1987) `La troisieme difference', Revue de Psychotherapie Psychanalytique de Groupe9-10: 15-30.
7.
Le Roy, J.
(1987a) `The Cultural Structuring of the Personality and Intercultural Relationships', Group Analysis20: (2) 147-153.
8.
Le Roy, J.
(1987b) `Processus dans un seminaire transculturel d'analyse de groupe', Revue de Psychotherapie Psychanalytique de Groupe9-10: 9-14.
9.
Rouchy, J.C.
(1987) `Identité culturelle et groupe d'appartenance', Revue de Psychotherapie Psychanalytique de Groupe9: 13-19.
10.
Winnicott, D.W.
(1971) `The Location of Cultural Experience', in D.W. Winnicott (ed.) Playing with Reality, Ch. 7. London: Tavistock.
